Video: Whoopi says Polanski didn’t commit “rape-rape”

posted at 9:30 am on September 29, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

How low will Hollywood go in defending Roman Polanski? Former Oscar hostess Whoopi Goldberg tries to parse the meaning of rape between rape and something called “rape-rape” — which, if you read the testimony of Polanski’s victim, Polanski literally did by raping her and then sodomizing her. Goldberg tries to argue that Polanski pled guilty to statutory rape, not actual rape, which is true, and that he served a sentence — which is absolutely false:

What I find much more disturbing is that, in that clip and another one that’s posted at Jezebel, the ladies of The View engage in some terrifying “debate” about what happened to then-13-year-old Samantha Geimer. Whoopi floats the notion that rape “wasn’t the allegation,” and that the victim “was aware,” and Melissa Gilbert thinks it makes a difference that “Mom was in the building.”

What the EFF? I hate to even point out the sickeningly obvious here. First of all, “rape-rape” was the allegation. Samantha Geimer testified that she told Polanski “No!” While Polanski denies this, he loses a couple of credibility points by drugging and sodomizing a 13 year old girl. I’d say she gets the benefit of the doubt here.

Notwithstanding that, though, is that the standard of consent now, “She was aware?” Keep an eye on your drinks, ladies, because in Whoopi’s world, the right dose of rohypnol will leave you just conscious enough to have deserved it.

Although Polanski got a deal in which the counts of actual rape and sodomy got dropped, the victim’s testimony makes clear that Polanski did both, and it wasn’t consensual at all. He drugged his victim to make her more compliant, and then forced himself on her twice despite her protestations. Whoopi wants to focus on the age of the victim and the reduced charge for the plea agreement to make it into a Lolita situation, perhaps where the girl and her mother stalked Polanski, rather than a violent rape and sodomy.

I’m curious how other Hollywood feminists see this. Debra Winger defended Polanski yesterday and demanded that the US drop the charges, after many years of feminist complaints from Winger about the Hollywood system. She doesn’t appear to apply her standards and values to a male director who victimized a child trying to break into the business, but Winger will gas on for hours about how older women get mistreated by Hollywood. This seems to be a big credibility test for Hollywood, one which they are flunking — badly.

Not everyone has flunked it, however. Washington Post’s reliable liberal voice Eugene Robinson contradicts Anne Applebaum (who absurdly claimed not to know that her husband was pushing for Polanski’s release and the withdrawal of the arrest warrant) and wonders what the hell is wrong with Polanski’s defenders:

Polanski has dual French-Polish citizenship, and officials in Paris and Warsaw are outraged. Which makes me outraged. What’s their beef? That Polanski is 76? That he makes great movies? That he only fled to escape what might well have been an unjust sentence? Sorry, mes amis, but none of this matters. If you decide to become a fugitive, you accept the risk that someday you might get caught.

Much has been made of the fact that Polanski’s victim, now 45, has said she no longer feels any anger toward him and does not want to see him jailed. But it’s irrelevant what the victim thinks and feels as a grown woman. What’s important is what she thought and felt at age 13, when the crime was committed. Those who argue that there’s something unjust about Polanski’s arrest are essentially accepting his argument that it’s possible for a 13-year-old girl, under the influence of alcohol and drugs, to “consent” to sex with a man in his 40s. Or maybe his defenders are saying that drugging and raping a child is simply not such a big deal.

As far as I’m concerned, it’s a huge deal. Even in France, it should be a big deal. This isn’t about a genius who is being hounded for flouting society’s hidebound conventions. It’s about a rich and powerful man who used his fame and position to assault — in every sense, to violate — an innocent child.

And it’s about a man who ran away rather than face the consequences of his actions. Before any sentence could be imposed, he absconded like a weasel to live a princely life in France.

Only a moron or a moral midget would read the transcripts and the actual facts of the case and conclude that Polanski deserves to avoid accountability for this crime. Unfortunately, Hollywood is filled with both.

Update: Jazz Shaw notes that both Goldberg and Winger are active in a certain kind of charity work:

I did some quick checking at “Look to the Stars” which promotes charitable work by celebrities, and Debra Winger is listed as one of their most prominent advocates for women’s issues charities. And what is the fourth most prominently championed organization there? The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. And who else is listed as a key supporter on the same page? Why, it’s none other than Whoopi Goldberg, whose profile includes the following:

The comedienne has channeled her celebrity into bringing attention to countless causes including AIDS, children’s issues, healthcare and substance abuse.

So, Ms. Winger and Ms. Goldberg are both prominent activists in the protection of females and children. Unless, of course, the female child in question crosses paths with the great Roman Polanski, in which case, well… you know… we understand they’re all kind of whores at that age, right?

Apparently that’s the message coming from Hollywood feminists and defenders of children like Goldberg and Winger.

Update: As for the argument that the judge was going to unfairly renege on Polanski’s plea bargain, Michael Stickings has the most sensible answer for that:

If the case was politically motivated or mishandled … let the evidence be presented in a court of law, not in the faux court of the pro-celebrity press.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

The judge did NOT renege on a plea deal. Polanski was sentenced to a 90 day pysch sentence after which the judge was going to formally sentence him for the crime of raping and sodomizing a 13 year old girl. He was let out early to work on a movie and, before he could be formally sentenced, fled the country.

Your obtuseness is an insult to every man, woman, and child that has ever suffered the brutality of rape.

I work in Hollywood, and it DISGUSTS me to hear the people defend him. There is no defending what he did.

This wasn’t a girl who was 17.5 years old who was on board with having sex with him and wasn’t drugged and brutally and forcibly sodomized by a 40+ year old man. If that was the case, I might be a bit more understanding of the calls to just forget it already since she would be 180 days away from being able to legally make that choice in CA; hell in some states a woman can consent at a much younger age.

However, in addition to the rape-rape he committed, to borrow Whoopi’s idiotic term, he also fled justice which I’m pretty sure was a crime then as it is now. So even if those rape charges are dropped, he should still be held accountable for fleeing justice.

The ‘he is too good an artist’ to be locked up defense is a non-starter. Anyone using that as a defense needs to pull their head out of their rear.

What? Have I called for anybody to be shot? That’s what conservatives do; demand the murder of their perceived enemies (as evidenced by their “bomb them all and let God sort them out” attitude on foreign policy and defense). I’m not sure what “ranks” you’re talking about either; is Roman Polanski a card-carrying, registered member of the Democratic Party?

Okay, so let me get this straight: protesting against government takeover of 1/6 of our economy is absolutely, positively racism, even though it’s the exact same point of view Americans have always had of socialized medicine.

But drugging a 13-year-old girl, and raping and sodomizing her is NOT “rape rape”.

Do these people know how they sound? Seriously, how can a person be so devoid of humanity and morality that the ONLY thing they can judge is political opinion?

What a stupid person to say such a thing, when the evidence is easily available to anybody and it was rape. He plead guilty to a lesser charge and still did not have the guts to stay to be sentenced. The young girls testimony at the time was very graphic and horrific what Polanksi did to that child. The gall of those to try and excuse this criminal act because thirty years has passed.

I get the impression they would have said the same thing about Stalin or Hilter if they were alive and had gotten arrested for their crimes.

This is appalling coming from these people who pride themselves on looking out for victims. Polanski is not a victim. He is a child rapist. A predator who should be made to serve the rest of his life in prison.

What made it worse was that Sherri, no brainiac to be sure, was basically cut off everytime she tried to make the common sense argument. No only was Whoopi Cushion beyond moronic, she rudely stopped anyone from bringing the remarkable point that, yes, drugging and raping 13-year-olds is a bad thing.

Just google Smoking Gun, which has some of the court records, including the victims comments. It was heartbreaking to read, and she actually said during one part of her statement that “he put his penis in my butt,”
after she tried to say no, in a drugged state. What child shoudl ever have to describe something like that?

I would like to hear these people quit hiding behind their so-called enlightened tolerance and come out and say it: The victim lied, and she’s still lying. That’s the only way you can maintain that it’s not “rape-rape” (bleccch, I hate even writing that). Maybe they could do a Nancy Pelosi and add, “rape victims always lie, you know.” Then we can throw it back in their faces every time they pretend to be feminists.

Smoking Gun has the court papers, including the victim’s statements. It’s heartbreaking and infuriating.

Short version: He gave her a qualude and champagne, performed an oral sex act on her and then intercourse. She said no repeatedly. He then, in her words “put his penis in my butt.”
What child should ever have to describe something like that? Who can defend that?
If she choses to forgive him, so be it. She’s a better person than me. She can even say that or write a letter to the court. But the SOB is brought to court and sentenced.

Much has been made of the fact that Polanski’s victim, now 45, has said she no longer feels any anger toward him and does not want to see him jailed. But it’s irrelevant what the victim thinks and feels as a grown woman. What’s important is what she thought and felt at age 13, when the crime was committed.

It’s irrelevant cuz it was the STATE of California that charged him, not the 13 year-old girl, now a 45 year-old woman.

“According to the stories I read, the judge reneged on the plea bargain, which is why he fled.”

And what is the “source” of these “stories”?

Is it the movie Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired?

The judge did not reneged on the plea bargain. The judge ordered Polanski to report to a state prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation.

The psychiatric evaluation would be used in formulating his sentence. The judge allowed a 90 day stay so Polanski could finish a film.

Polanski used that and fled to Europe where he has been for the last 30+ years.

The alleged prosecution malfeasance is based on “dialog” of a movie!

In 2008, a documentary film of the aftermath of the incident, Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, premiered at the Sundance Film Festival. Following review of the film,
Polanski’s attorney, Douglas Dalton, contacted the Los Angeles district attorney’s office about prosecutor David Wells’ role in coaching the trial judge, Laurence J. Rittenband.

Based on statements by Wells included in the film, Polanski and Dalton are seeking review of whether the prosecutor acted illegally and engaged in malfeasance in interfering with the operation of the trial.

Translation Polanski’s attorney is using the “dialog” of a movie as the “fact” of “prosecution malfeasance”.

You do understand movies are NOT real? Right?

“I suspect he made real amends to the victim”

That’s nice, however he was charged and convicted by the sate of California, not the victim.

So CA pled this horrific crime down to their version of statutory rape. What if the victim had been a full-grown woman, and that charge had not even been on the table? Would they have been less apt to plea-bargain away the other charges, and more likely to hold firm?

If so, the victim (and the rest of us) got robbed of justice because she was a minor. Which would be a further outrage.

Gee, the movie people got mad because when they were about to honor a child rapist, the child rapist got arrested and couldn’t get that cherished award, causing great disappointment and consternation among the gifted few… A-w-w-w-w-w…

Why shouldn’t he now? Just because she’s forgiven him? Criminal justice doesn’t work that way, friend.

The rapist apologist just don’t get it.

All because a victim forgives and wishes to move on does not mean the perpetrator does not have to pay for their crimes.

It is very ironic that this “forgiveness” line is being used in a case where the perpetrator Polanski lost his wife to the Charles Manson cult.

Do the rapist apologist not know that the daughter of Leno and Rosemary Labianca (murdered on the second night by the Manson Family) has also forgiven Tex,Sadie(now dead),Krenwinkel,Van Houten,and Manson.

Should they be let out also.
They certainly have served a lot of time.
They are certainly to old to pose much of a threat to society.
They have a lot of “fans”.

Really liberals, where do you draw the line in your defense of child rapist.

Besides murder, what crimes are more horrific than the rape of a young child.

How pathetic to watch the same people that cried and screamed about having water poured over a terrorist face defend and support the drugging and raping of a 13 year old child.
How progressive!!!!!!

Heh, good one. Remember Mark Foley? At least a dozen Republican congressman knew about the perv’s emails and they still kept their mouths shut, including the Speaker of the House Hastert. You only denounced him after the news broke and it was a political necessity.

crr6 on September 29, 2009 at 12:15 PM

Hey genius, this is the democrat that replaced the Republican that sent test messages compared to your liberal friend that used tax payers money to pay off a mistress that he tried to prostitute out in getting political influence.

West Palm Beach Congressman Tim Mahoney (D-FL), whose predecessor resigned in the wake of a sex scandal, agreed to a $121,000 payment to a former mistress

Mahoney, who is married, also promised the woman, Patricia Allen, a $50,000 a year job for two years at the agency that handles his campaign advertising, the staffers said.

In a February letter to Mahoney, Coleman alleged sexual harassment, intimidation, humiliation and charged that the Congressman’s behavior masked a “dark and depraved personality,” according to people who have seen the letter.

The settlement was reached after Allen hired a lawyer who sent the Congressman a “demand” letter, listing specific examples of Mahoney’s alleged “gross misconduct” and “stalking” including:
“a) Calling Allen late in the evenings and demanding “phone sex;”
b) Demanding that Allen answer his calls or face termination;
c) Demanding that Allen attend fundraisers and “tease c-ck” to bring in more donations from the male members of the public;
d) Demanding that Allen engage in sexual conduct with another woman for his enjoyment.”

Current and former staffers told ABC News the allegations contained in the “demand letter” sent to Mahoney were backed up by tape recordings of phone calls between the Congressman and Allen.

Really smart trying to use Foley to score political points when his liberal replacement was a womanizing,wannabe pimp.

I have to ask, why in the hell does anyone care what Whoopie Goldburg thinks about a 32 year old criminal case in which she was not a participant, had no connection with and which she has no actual knowledge of?

So, Ms. Winger and Ms. Goldberg are both prominent activists in the protection of females and children. Unless, of course, the female child in question crosses paths with the great Roman Polanski, in which case, well… you know… we understand they’re all kind of whores at that age, right?

So, Cardinal Law who is a prominent Prince of the Church and Shepherd of his flock. Unless, of course, the sheep under his care cross paths with the great parish priests under his auspices, in which case, well… you know, we understand that 5 to 12 years-olds are all kind of whores, right?

But he’d never try and help pedophiles escape justice would he? And if he did, surely he’d not be protected for doing so? In in the crazy scenario by which even that would happen, surely he would lose stature and be disgraced, right?

I have to ask, why in the hell does anyone care what Whoopie Goldburg thinks about a 32 year old criminal case in which she was not a participant, had no connection with and which she has no actual knowledge of?
MikeA on September 30, 2009 at 8:42 AM

She is promoting a view that is reprehensible to just about every American even the lefties at HofPo are outraged by this. She has just in one sentence undermined all of the last 40 years of advocating for victims’ rights done in this nation. She has blamed the victim to defend the perpetrator of a brutal and despicable act. She did this using a venue that gave her access to millions of viewer in a attempt to inject her morality into the community. If we do not speak up then we weaken the community, even if 1 person is swayed we are diminished.
That’s why

I received a Toys ‘R’ Us flier in the mail yesterday, and on the back was Whoopi with a child promoting a children with disabilities project jointly with Toys ‘R’ Us. I wondered whether Toys ‘R’ Us would feel any pressure to disassociate itself with a Child Rape apologist? If Glen Beck is held accountable to his advertisers and business associates then so should Miss Goldberg!

along with a little math and extrapolation (data is not available in all states), I calculate that there are 20,000 rapes in the US each year for chidren 13 years old or younger. Our rate of rape only considering children 13 or under is 0.0658. People in the US rape children 13 or under at a greater rate than the rate of rape of all women in countries like Ireland and Switzerland (using data from here:http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita)

I didn’t take time to read all of the comments – so, I am sure I am just reiterating what someone else has said – but, it is amazing to me that Whoopi Goldberg doesn’t have to have all of the ‘facts’ if it is someone or something that SHE is ‘passionate’ about.

I suggest Whoopi and her ilk provide us with a sliding rape scale… maybe they could make it 3 dimensional by calibrating it with the level of “artistic genius” the perpetrator has.

I don’t know why I have his feeling that if the 40+ year old man has been, say, a banker or some corporate CEO, sexually assaulting a child, cutting a deal but then going on the run, Whoppi and the Hollywood apologists would be all up in arms, and clamouring to play the heroic DA seeking to finish the 30 year saga and ensure justice is done. what a joke this woman is! unthinking idiot is the most charitable description I have for her.

And here is en example that some film directors do have moral compass. The French director Luc Besson (for those of you unfamiliar, he’s one of the best, Frech directors of his generation, he actually did a lot of movies in English and with English cast) refused to sign the petition calling for Polanski’s release.

He said: “I have a lot of affection for him, he is a man that I like very much but nobody should be above the law. I don’t know the details of this case, but I think that when you don’t show up for trial, you are taking a risk.”